The toolkit provides a concise but thorough rundown of the Act, the threats to it, and the most effective ways scientists can leverage their expertise to help inform endangered species decisions, advocate for science-based decision making, and collaborate with other endangered species advocates. As the barrage of attacks on the law show no signs of slowing, there are ample opportunities for scientists to act.

Despite its overall success, we have already seen several attempts to weaken the Endangered Species Act this year alone, with calls to undermine the science-based process by allowing for economic considerations in the listing process, blocking gray wolf protections in the Midwest, and prioritizing information provided by states, tribes, and counties as “best available science”—regardless of the actual merit of the information given (see our letter of opposition here). We will likely see more, if the fervor of overall political attacks on science under the current administration to date is any indication.

A California condor flies over the Bitter Creek National Wildlife Refuge (USFWS). Condor recovery efforts have helped increase the population of California condors from 23 in 1982 to 435 as of 2015.

What’s in the toolkit

The toolkit comprises four sections:

Understanding the Endangered Species Act

Threats to science-based endangered species policy

Leveraging your voice as a scientist

Additional resources

You will get a concise but thorough rundown that details the Act’s provisions and explains how the law works in practice. You’ll learn about the core components of the Act, the criteria for listing, the listing process, and who plays a role in species protection, as well as the risks to the Act from political interference, suggestions for ways to push back, and a variety of ways scientists can help protect species at risk. And of course, you will have an arsenal of resources to guide you, because no toolkit is complete without a good list of information sources and potential partner organizations.

Scientists: You can make a difference

More than 800 scientists have now signed on to a letter asking Congress to reject efforts to gut the science-based law, building on a long tradition of scientists standing up to attacks on the Endangered Species Act (sign on to current letter here, read past letters here).

And this mobilization of the science community is crucial right now. This stuff matters. Restricting the use of science in the Endangered Species Act or making the law vulnerable to political interference, as has been the case with some recent legislative proposals, would lead to otherwise preventable species extinctions and the destruction of habitat that is essential to environmental health.

It is important to remember that, although the Endangered Species Act was politically contentious even under the Obama administration, the greatest, most salient difference is: we are now living in a post-truth America, where decisions are being made without the support of credible scientific evidence. The entire process is under attack.

But this time, we are prepared to stand up for science and biodiversity—toolkits in hand.

As we face irreversible destruction of species and their habitats due to threats from habitat loss and fragmentation, overharvesting, pollution, climate change, and invasive species, lawmakers indicate they intend to attack the Endangered Species Act again. Under the current administration, we’ve already witnessed the introduction of several pieces of legislation intended to weaken the Endangered Species Act or specific species protections. Most recently, Senator Barrasso (R-WY), chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, announced interest in introducing legislation sometime this summer to overhaul the Act (here and here), despite the ESA’s history of overwhelming support from voters. These potential modifications would mean shifting the authority of implementing the Endangered Species Act from scientists and wildlife managers to politicians.

Science is a constitutive element of the Endangered Species Act, the emergency care program for wildlife. It is the foundation for listing and delisting threatened and endangered species, developing recovery plans for the continued survival of listed species, and taking preventative conservation efforts. This is both a boon and a curse. Since the Endangered Species Act relies on the best available science to make conservation decisions, it is highly successful—over 99% of the species protected under the Act have dodged extinction—yet this reliance on science also makes the law highly susceptible to outside interference from political interests.

Here I am on a nesting beach in Barbuda, monitoring critically endangered hawksbill sea turtles (see above), one of over a thousand species currently listed under the ESA.

The implications of attacks on the science-based Endangered Species Act reflect broader attacks on science in general. Science should have priority influence on our policy decisions; otherwise regulated industries and politics will decide critical aspects of our everyday lives—like the safety and quality of our food, air, and water, and whether or not our nation’s biodiversity is protected. As scientists, we must continue to advance the role of science in public policy as a whole, and ensure that public health, worker safety, and environmental protections rely on the best independent scientific and technical information available.

My generation has been accused of ruining everything from napkins to handshakes. But we should recognize that we have a responsibility to protect imperiled species from permanent extinction so that future generations can experience animals like the bald eagle in the wild. Ensuring that this responsibility is informed by the best available science provided by biologists and other conservation experts is critical. That’s why as a scientific community, we need to make certain the decisions to protect wildlife at risk of extinction are grounded in science. Scientists, not Congress, should be informing decisions about which species deserve protection under the Endangered Species Act. We don’t need to “fix” something that already works. Please join me in urging Congress not to support any legislation to rewrite or modify the Endangered Species Act—our most successful conservation law.

PS If you need additional motivation to sign the letter, just look at this pair of gray wolf pups! Why would someone be against protecting endangered species?